This rent row

Coventry City Chat!
Can *Insert current manager here* keep us up?
Has *insert whatever shite midfielder we have here* made a forward pass?
Keep up to date with Covenders!


Previous topicNext topic

This rent row

Postby billythefish » Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:59 pm

All getting a bit silly now.

Bank accounts frozen (I assume this means that players may not be paid), ACL saying that no further discussions will take place and that they will take SISU to court to recover the 1.3m owed. I assume that a transfer emabargo may follow if not resolved soon.

Had really hoped that the mess would have been sorted by now and that a solution could have been found. Whilst I agree with SISU that we needed to renegotiate this needs sorting now. Just our luck to put a run together to get into playoffs to be hit with admin - its the CCFC way you know!
billythefish
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6311
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:00 am
Location: Normally on Sofa with keebab and lager.
 
Prediction League Wins: 2



Re: This rent row

Postby The Yid » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:42 pm

ACL are ****... Sadly they reflect the mentality and intelligence of the people left to run the local council in Coventry.

ACL only exist to support the development of the club through the stadium. It's now run by a bunch of jumped up pricks who think they are more important than the club.
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
Image
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: This rent row

Postby Sky Blue Strawberry » Tue Feb 26, 2013 9:52 pm

[smilie=icon_goodpost.gif] he's right
User avatar
Sky Blue Strawberry
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 9174
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:31 pm
 



Re: This rent row

Postby dog rout 21 » Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:45 pm

No, no, no it's all nasty SISU's fault, they should pay 10x over the odds in rent with no return on matchday spend. We used to be in the premiership don't you know.
ISUZU OUT!
#bringcovbacktonorthampton
User avatar
dog rout 21
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 6909
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:54 pm
 



Re: This rent row

Postby bolix » Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:21 pm

The Yid wrote:ACL are ****... Sadly they reflect the mentality and intelligence of the people left to run the local council in Coventry.

ACL only exist to support the development of the club through the stadium. It's now run by a bunch of jumped up pricks who think they are more important than the club.



Haha, organise a protest. Mellie could lend you a well soiled bed sheet.

SAdly, for us, innocent bystanders in this glorious fuckup that is CCFC - ACL could have been the only - and certainly the most logical bedfellows for SISU. Now its a wreck. Relations are irrevocably shattered......SISU have burnt their bridges and ACL have been forced to compromise. No glory on either side.....or honour. **** the lot of 'em.
Ken Dodd's dad's dog's dead
User avatar
bolix
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 4539
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:54 pm
 
Prediction League Wins: 1



Re: This rent row

Postby skyblue025 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:48 pm

They are as bad as each other.

I think ACl's last offer was fair to be honest 400k, a reduction in rates and a share of food and drink seems about right.

SISU wont budge on their price which seems a bit childish as ACL have made a couple of offers.

I am surprised with ACL's trimming though.
If Fishing is a sport, then i am an athlete!!!

If it's wet and smells of fish be happy!!!
User avatar
skyblue025
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Fleet
 



Re: This rent row

Postby Sky Blue Strawberry » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:33 pm

From what I understand they've accepted the rent is fair the problem is ACL have sold the catering rights to Compass and so the revenues from that cannot be diverted to the club
User avatar
Sky Blue Strawberry
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 9174
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:31 pm
 



Re: This rent row

Postby The Yid » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:23 pm

So without access to food/drink revenue the club is losing valuable money that will ultimately affect the playing budget. Lets say that the food revenue is £1 million as an example, so with that on the balance sheet the club could add an extra 600K on the wage and transfer budget.
These are the facts that the bed sheet brigade aren't capable of comprehending, and ACL are that fucking stupid they can't see where the club stance is coming from.
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: This rent row

Postby AD » Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:04 pm

So what, ACL break the agreement with Compass, resulting in a massive financial penalty for ACL, just so the club can have some dosh from the burgers, which will immediately be swallowed up by the massive losses the club make because footballers are massively overpaid.

I don't see the club demanding the players all take a massive pay decrease for being in league one and then withhold their pay until they agree to it, despite the fact it is directly their fault the club is there. And that is a much larger percentage of overall costs than the rent. Why don't they do that? Because they know the contracts are legally binding and can do fuck all about it. The rent is exactly the same, apart from the fact that the stadium is good enough for the Prem, none of our players are even good enough for the Championship. The contract is there and its legally binding. So pay up or fuck off.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: This rent row

Postby The Yid » Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:51 pm

You can only spend 60% of revenue on player wages... So less revenue less money for player wages. How is that a difficult concept to understand? And conversely why should the quality of the playing staff be lowered so a that a company created to SUPPORT the football club can outsource the match day arrangements. I cannot understand how you can justify the ACL stance on this?
You say about the players wages should be adjusted based in being in League 1 but a large proportion of players joined since being in League 1, and even in Championship they would have been some of the lowest paid.
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: This rent row

Postby Burf » Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:16 pm

what about if they just paid the players in burgers ?? [smilie=icon_blink.gif]

Circle squared.
"...your feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side..."
User avatar
Burf
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 6105
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:38 am
 



Re: This rent row

Postby AD » Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:49 pm

The Yid wrote:You can only spend 60% of revenue on player wages... So less revenue less money for player wages. How is that a difficult concept to understand? And conversely why should the quality of the playing staff be lowered so a that a company created to SUPPORT the football club can outsource the match day arrangements. I cannot understand how you can justify the ACL stance on this?
You say about the players wages should be adjusted based in being in League 1 but a large proportion of players joined since being in League 1, and even in Championship they would have been some of the lowest paid.


It's not, but we all know full well that it'll just result in the same shit being paid more money. Unless their income is directly related to the revenue so any effect becomes immediate it's a waste of time. They sign a contract for £2-3k a week they get £2-3k a week regardless. Give them £500 a week and the rest shared out among the squad at the end of the season based on the revenue taken during that season there's an incentive for them to play well, increase crowds and prize money and therefore earn more money.

I can justify the ACL stance because, like the players, they have a contract to be paid that much and they're entitled to that amount. If they refused to pay the players would you support the club in that stance? No, because they're obliged to pay them. Simple.

ACL offered them a sweet deal, wiping out their own profit, with absolutely no obligation to do so in order to try and help the club out. They put in a third party debt order instead of a winding-up one to help the club out, as it wouldn't result in the loss of 10 points. ACL have done more than enough to try and help and facilitate the clubs continued existence despite not being the main cause of it's problems. The club on the other hand have done fuck all except told them to do one because other clubs were paying less for stuff that was far older, smaller and with worse facilities. I challenge SISU to take their version of what a 'fair price' is and try and rent a stadium of similar quality, size etc with it. They'd be laughed at, and they know it.

Every single action taken by the people running the club has been designed solely to prolong this sorry saga to try and force the stadium into financial problems. 'Constructive' talks which always end on the verge of an agreement only for the club to renege at the last minute. Calls for mediators when they're finally called to account when they could have suggested it from the outset 18 months ago. SISU know they've not got a legal leg to stand on. All this "but we're earning less and others don't pay as much" bullshit won't wash in the courts.

As I've said before take the fact it's CCFC out of the equation and what's your stance then? If it were Leicester, Man U (insert hated club of choice) would you be backing them or telling the fuckers to pay up or go out of business?
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: This rent row

Postby The Yid » Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:27 pm

ACL have not offered a sweet deal at all. They were involved in the original rental agreement pre-SISU and have milked it ever since. Their latest might read as 400K (which incidentally the club said they were happy to accept), but actually that is not really that accurate is it? It doesn't include paying for the non-football full time staff, or the cost of maintaning the pitch. Then there is the stewarding costs and of course policing - again which the club pay (and have been all along) - because if they didn't we wouldn't have any home games. Since ACL don't have to worry about those costs - is it really so unrealistic to ask to have access to all non-ticket matchday revenues?? 400K a year with FULL matchday revenue is not unreasonable at all, it allows the club to try and find a break-even point, and who knows ACL may actually benefit from the deal in the long term.

As for the club, if I was Tim Fisher i'd expect my job to involve getting the best deal possible for CCFC, from negotiating player contracts, to maximising money made from player transfers. Asking to renegotiate what is a shitty rental deal is perfectly justified, because the club are losing money. The playing budget is probably as streamlined as it can be, but the rent is completely unrealistic, especially with no further available income. What grates me even more is that ACL have had to completely restructure their debt, and the council have backed them. So is it not justifiable for the club to ask to do the same? It speaks volumes about ACL's business plan (or lack of) and how they seem incapable of understanding the intrinsic link between them and CCFC. So you have to ask yourself what is the point of ACL if not to help the club develop commercially??

As for your final point, I would not like to see any club be liquidated. I would be happy to see Leicester fall to League 2, or Man U to get relegated to the Championship, i'd rather be able to look down on Villa in league 2 than see them go out of existence.

Would you rather CCFC go out of business so a catering company get their contract honoured?

Or that a council subsidary with a failed business plan continue instead of a 125 year old football club?
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: This rent row

Postby skyblue025 » Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:44 pm

The club would probably of gone out of existence 7 or 8 years ago if it wasn't for the Council and AHT bailing them out. ACL (I believe) have made a fair offer. Yes 1 mil+ a season is way over the top but they have been offered a deal 7-800k less with additional revenue streams and reduced rates. Seems fair enough to me.
User avatar
skyblue025
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:08 pm
Location: Fleet
 



Re: This rent row

Postby The Yid » Thu Feb 28, 2013 6:48 pm

But they haven't. It's 400K with no revenue stream access. Not really a good deal is it?
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Re: This rent row

Postby the boss » Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:31 pm

the simple fact is they both need each other. Without the club using it there is no use for the place save a few concerts in the summer. City need the ground as they have no place else to go.
2014 will be our year !!
the boss
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 7780
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:35 pm
 



Re: This rent row

Postby AD » Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:07 pm

According to the ACL people the rent is £150k pa. So SISU's £400k figure actually DOES include all the other costs like matchday etc. And it's not been 'milked' - it'd been set at that rate to cover the massive mortgage on the stadium the club couldn't afford in the first place.

And think for a second. Whatever the club make in revenue they can use 60% of on increased wages budget. But by taking over the running of the food outlets they also have extra work to do to negotiate with suppliers, staff to run them etc - more costs. Plus they've got to buy the actual produce/stock. something they'll have to do at a much higher unit price than an actual caterer due to economies of scale as they only run one place. Profit from them is probably 15% at best, but you're using 60% of revenue on player wages, so where do you get the cash from to pay the food suppliers? It's a nonsense business plan with one outcome - cashflow problems.

Or do you think it fair that ACL pay for the food stock, the people running them and doing the work in the background and CCFC just get given all the money in the tills? This is a business, not a Mafia-style protection racket!

So ACL were involved with the original rental agreement. And that figure was based on what CCFC's then board had agreed to for HR (£1m pa), so the overpayment is down to those running CCFC at the time, not the council. Council wanted nothing to do with the Ricoh. They got involved because the club asked them to, for the long term benefit of the city. Council could have said "no" to that, Club couldn't have afforded HR and gone out of business to a housing developer chasing debts over 10 years ago. The council setting up ACL gives this club the chance to exist now - without it it wouldn't.

And as I've said before, they could always have said "no" and demanded a renegotiation when they took over. People say "Well there was only 30 minutes until admin". Do you think they just turned up at the ground with an hour to go and said "we'll have a go at running the club?" No. there'd been months of negotiation. They'd spent months getting people to part with their shares, why not spend that time sorting out a decent rent? Didn't bother though did they. Obviously they didn't think it was a problem. And if you say "we weren't in League 1 then" well who's to blame for that?

You can choose to renegotiate your rent if you want. Your landlord can just as easily chose to say no and kick you out. Asking to renegotiate a rental deal is perfectly justified. Telling them to fuck off and pay is a perfectly justified response too. But they didn't do that. They offered them a deal at 1/3 of the original price. THAT IS A GOOD DEAL. But SISU chose to push it and pushed too far. They twisted when they should have stuck.

Why should ACL incur a financial penalty breaking a contract because SISU want so more money, which won't make a blind bit of difference to their overall losses. And why should the catering company lose it's income without recompense for an agreed contract? After all it itself will have contracts agreed with suppliers etc that it is legally bound by, and probably further on down the chain. Potentially dozens of companies put in the shit because a financial headcase of a football club can have a few extra quid that'd keep it going for an extra month at best and let it employ one extra player a year who chances are would be a massive pile of shit given our history. If SISU want the catering money, let them pay the get out clauses etc so they can have it.

Whose business plan has failed? The one making a profit and who can rent out the same space for concerts at an equivalent price way above what the club are already paying.
Or the one that's been running at a massive loss with a huge debt for nigh on 15 years because it pays its employs way over the odds, as its entire industry does?

Explain why this would make such a difference? £800k less on the rent/stadium costs. Losses anywhere between £3-6m a year. It's like saying you've been saved from bankruptcy by finding a quid down the back of the sofa.
Last edited by AD on Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: This rent row

Postby AD » Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:10 pm

the boss wrote:the simple fact is they both need each other. Without the club using it there is no use for the place save a few concerts in the summer. City need the ground as they have no place else to go.


Very few bands do concerts in the summer - they do festivals. Main time for gigs is spring and autumn. No football club, more time for more profitable concerts in prime season. The ground could live for longer without CCFC than CCFC could without the ground.
User avatar
AD
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:53 pm
 



Re: This rent row

Postby bolix » Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:46 pm

The Yid wrote:
As for the club, if I was Tim Fisher i'd expect my job to involve getting the best deal possible for CCFC, from negotiating player contracts, to maximising money made from player transfers.


I agree with this. This is what football clubs do. But not CCFC under SISU. King, Gunnarse, Westwood, Turner.....all earned the club a fraction of their overall worth in transfer fees. They could have been secured under short/medium/or longer contracts but weren't. Only Turner secured a fee for the club a reported £750,000 which should've been twice that.........probably three years profit on pies and pints ffs!!
Your logic (Yid) stacks up but is immediately rubbished by the idiocy of SISU. WHY ON EARTH therefore should ACL be expected to break contracts in order to make up for the idiocy and ineptitude of Sisu?
I'd get down the council offices with Mellie's "ACL out" bed sheet because you've clearly thought this through. [smilie=icon_emoticonthumb.gif] [smilie=icon_emoticonthumb.gif] [smilie=icon_emoticonthumb.gif]
User avatar
bolix
Manager
Manager
 
Posts: 4539
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:54 pm
 
Prediction League Wins: 1



Re: This rent row

Postby The Yid » Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:16 pm

I think to be honest there is some muddy water over the values quoted by both parties... It is difficult to know where the actual real values lie.
The club has no real chance of moving forward in the future without being in control of the stadium. What I can't understand is the long term ambition of ACL if its not intertwined with the club. And irrespective of previous agreements and previous behaviour - you cannot deny that the clubs desire to lower the rent and access all revenues for the stadium is a good plan for CCFC and its future. If the club becomes successful then it should pay more, but even so... Who are the beneficiaries?
After all this there is still a stadium and ultimately a 3rd party company will own a stadium that they may have initially laid out for (using council money) but they will have recouped from the club. At the end of the day the club pays for the stadium in its entirety over a long period of time, yet owns nothing. It's like us paying a 25 year mortgage for a house, and at the end not owning it.
iPhone [ Post made via iPhone ]
User avatar
The Yid
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:57 pm
Highscores: 5
 



Next

Return to CCFC Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Google [Bot] and 56 guests